Wizlandia wrote:The war on drugs occurred because of increasing crime rates during the 80s and 90s and public anti-crime attitudes. It has nothing to do with rich people buying politicians lol. And I don't think Libertarians are ok with actual criminal behaviour (e.g. "buying politicians").
"Campaign contributions" are perfectly legal, yet they still serve as de facto bribes as they establish a quid pro quo.
The 80s and 90s may have had that excuse, but the 21st century does not. Scandinavia has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you can stop crime by stopping the root causes of crime, without needing prisons or policing anywhere near as heavy-handed as the USA's. (Though frankly, I'm not sure why they believed anything else. Were all those old stories of people turning to theft out of desperation completely unconvincing to people for decades on end?)
Wizlandia wrote:There's many variants of conservatism.
If it's supposed to be about tradition, then the only qualifier on the namesake should be whose traditions are being conserved.
And if it isn't, why the word conservatism?
Wizlandia wrote:There's many conservatives that oppose these economic pressure on woke companies (just read anyone from The Dispatch).
And yet, they try to reconcile this with the "free market" that paved the way for it.
Wizlandia wrote:At the same time, there are cultural conservatives that were never really on board with limited government, and support using government power to disincentivise wokeness. It's not really a single ideology.
And yet, they use the same name. At least one of these two variants is misusing the word. Either way, the other is failing to adequately call them out on it.
Wizlandia wrote:I'm confused. I'm not aware this is a position among the American centre-left.
It is the status quo in child support law; a status quo that could not have been maintained without leftist help.
Wizlandia wrote:I mean I think you're mixing up ideologies with parties. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are coalitions of many different ideologies, many conflicting, and voters prioritise different policies lead to perhaps odd (at least from an outside perspective) policy combinations. But I don't think that's equivalent to saying "mainstream ideologies" don't make sense.
How else do you propose measuring "mainstream ideologies" than how people vote?